Contact groups and informal consultations were held throughout Saturday
on a wide range of issues, including adaptation, the Adaptation Fund,
arrangements for intergovernmental meetings, deforestation, IPCC 2006
Guidelines and harvested wood products, privileges and immunities,
research and systematic observation, and the Special Climate Change Fund
(SCCF). In addition, bilateral and small group consultations continued
under the AWG, and an in-session workshop was held on carbon capture and
storage.

CONTACT GROUPS

ADAPTATION FUND: The Co-Chairs distributed a proposal based on the
outcomes and submissions from the Adaptation Fund workshop held in June
2005, noting that the proposal is not a formal negotiation text. The
G-77/CHINA observed that it had developed other criteria to add to those
contained in the proposal, including “tailor made” operational policies
for most vulnerable countries and the requirement that funding be used
for concrete adaptation projects. Several other parties noted
consistency between criteria proposed by the G-77/CHINA and their own
submissions. The G-77/CHINA also referenced the need for further
information from prospective institutions for managing the Fund,
including whether the Fund would be managed separately and have autonomy
from other funds. AOSIS noted the need to avoid another fund that is
difficult to access. The EU, CANADA, SWITZERLAND and NORWAY preferred
that the GEF be designated as the operating entity for the Fund. Parties
will discuss their views on the elements of the proposal at the contact
group meeting on Monday.

ARRANGEMENTS FOR INTERGOVERNMENTAL MEETINGS: COP 12 and COP/MOP 2:
Co-Chair Wörgetter drew attention to the recent Earth Negotiations
Bulletin’s “In The Corridors” section, which noted concerns about
“meeting fatigue.” She observed that this was an issue for future
meeting planning. Richard Kinley, UNFCCC Officer-in-Charge, briefed
parties on planning for COP 12 and COP/MOP 2, observing that the complex
agendas and proliferation of events meant constraints on the number of
contact group meetings and the possibility that some work would not be
completed.

Delegates considered a number of organizational options. Many favored
clustering agenda items and prioritizing issues, while noting that the
current agenda reflects a careful “balance” of issues proposed by
parties. The G-77/CHINA, EU, and UMBRELLA GROUP opposed extending the
meeting beyond two weeks, although the G-77/CHINA added that it might
consider a one-day extension. Parties also objected to evening sessions,
citing concerns over fatigue. AUSTRALIA suggested shortening the
lunchtime break. Participants also supported setting limits on speaking
times in formal sessions. CHINA said the AWG should be prioritized.
Responding to questions about financing, Kinley said extending the
meeting dates or holding evenings sessions would have only a minor
impact on the budget. Co-Chair de Wet suggested that parties should
identify three or four priorities, and also three or four non-priorities
that could be deferred to a subsequent meeting.

Future sessional periods: Parties agreed to a US proposal to move
the dates for the second sessional period in 2011 to 28 November – 9
December.

Review of COP/MOP 1 and COP 11 arrangements: TheUS and
AUSTRALIA noted new information on participation of observer states
since the Secretariat’s paper (FCCC/SBI/2006/2) had been produced, and
Chair de Wet said this would be taken into account. The EU restated its
position that informal consultations should be closed to non-parties
unless parties give their consent.

Organization of intergovernmental process: Parties suggested
proposals to increase efficiency through innovations such as agenda
“clustering” and multi-year work cycles (FCCC/SBI/2006/3 and MISC.8).
The G-77/CHINA requested a more detailed discussion on clustering, and
the EU said it could agree to several of the proposals. Informal
consultations will take place on Monday afternoon.

DEFORESTATION: Co-Chairs Carlino and Rosland presented draft text on
the scope of the upcoming workshop. BRAZIL said there should be no
references to the Protocol or trading mechanisms. Opposed by TUVALU and
others, BRAZIL proposed removing language meant to replace references to
leakage, permanence and baselines. With PAPUA NEW GUINEA, but opposed by
the US, she suggested deleting reference to projected emissions. BRAZIL
also proposed referring to “financial mechanisms” instead of “market
mechanisms.” Noting the narrow definition of “financial mechanism” under
the Convention, TUVALU proposed referring to “fiscal mechanism.” JAPAN,
supported by the EU, underscored drivers and socioeconomic aspects. The
US expressed concern about the broad agenda and, supported by BRAZIL but
opposed by TUVALU, proposed a narrower agenda for the upcoming workshop
and to address other issues in a second workshop before SBSTA 26. PAPUA
NEW GUINEA, BOLIVIA and CHILE stressed the importance of giving equal
attention to scientific and policy issues. Informal consultations
continued into the evening.

PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES: Delegates discussed options for
protecting individuals serving on constituted bodies under the Protocol
from legal actions, which include a COP/MOP decision granting them
privileges and immunities, written confirmation from private entities to
settle all disputes at the Secretariat’s headquarters and ad hoc
arrangements. Chair Watkinson explained that an amendment to the
Protocol was not included in the options but should be borne in mind.
ARGENTINA proposed changing CDM and JI rules to prevent private entities
from bringing claims against officials serving under the Kyoto Protocol.
CANADA, supported by the EU, proposed that the COP/MOP request a UN
General Assembly resolution on the 1946 UN Convention. The contact group
will reconvene on Tuesday morning to consider revised text.

RESEARCH AND SYSTEMATIC OBSERVATION: Delegates met informally on
Saturday morning and in a contact group that afternoon, when they
considered draft conclusions paragraph-by-paragraph. Participants agreed
on paragraphs relating to: research needs and priorities; regional and
international research programmes; regional networks; dialogue and
communication; importance of scientific research; and the importance of
data and systematic observation for research. While a paragraph on next
steps remains bracketed, discussions are expected to conclude on Monday.

SPECIAL CLIMATE CHANGE FUND: Delegates began discussions on the
draft decision forwarded from SBI 22 (FCCC/SBI/2005/10), focusing on two
proposals for using the SCCF to finance activities set out in Decision
7/CP.7, paragraph 2 (d) (funding under the Convention). The EU supported
language citing technical assistance, while the G-77/CHINA preferred
broader language, noting that technical assistance is limited and open
to interpretation. Informal consultations on merging these two proposals
will be held prior to the contact group meeting on Monday. At the
contact group meeting on Monday, delegates will also focus on other
sections of bracketed text, most notably a list on specific areas to be
funded.

INFORMAL CONSULTATIONS

ADAPTATION: During informal consultations, delegates continued to
work through the initial list of activities identified at the Vienna
workshop with a view to simplifying the list. They addressed: methods
and tools; data and observation; climate modeling; climate related risks
and extreme events; socioeconomic information, adaptation planning and
practices; research; technologies for adaptation; and economic
diversification. The G-77/CHINA made several proposals to add some
recommendations to the list of deliverables on how to address the issues
and on practical implementation. The Co-Chairs will prepare new text
incorporating the various comments in time for a contact group meeting
on Monday morning.

IPCC
2006 GUIDELINES ON INVENTORIES AND HARVESTED WOOD PRODUCTS: In
informal consultations conducted by Riitta Pipatti (Finland),
parties exchanged views on the process for considering the Guidelines,
and on issues forwarded from the previous SBSTA, including biomass
burning, methane emissions, and harvested wood products.

AD HOC WORKING GROUP

Informal bilateral and small group consultations continued on Saturday,
with discussions focusing on general issues of process and objectives.
Only limited progress was reported and consultations will continue.

WORKSHOP ON CARBON Capture AND STORAGE

An
in-session workshop on carbon dioxide capture and storage (CCS) convened
on Saturday. SBSTA Chair Kishan Kumarsingh explained that the workshopï¿½s
objective was to improve understanding of CCS through an overview of the
IPCC Special Report on CCS, noting that it underscores CCSï¿½s potential
and discusses financial, social, environmental, legal, public perception
and safety issues. He also indicated that the workshop would highlight
experiences and lessons learned and said he would prepare a report for
consideration at SBSTA 25.

Many
participants agreed that CCS could address a large amount of carbon
dioxide emissions, notably from power production stationary sources,
while noting that it increases energy use by approximately 30-40% and is
not yet financially or technologically viable on a large scale. Some
delegates also observed that while CCS is not a ï¿½silver bullet
solution,ï¿½ it could be part of a portfolio of energy options. There were
also comments that: public acceptance is needed for CCS to achieve wide
implementation; good site selection, monitoring and remediation methods
are critical for safety and limiting the chance of leakage; and
regulatory incentives are needed if CCS is to move beyond enhanced oil
recovery.

Other
participants expressed concerns about possible leakage and ocean
storage, about the high costs associated with capture, and whether
incentives for developing renewable energy will be hampered by CCS.
Additional concerns related to the 5-10 year window still required for
research and development before wide-scale adoption of CCS, and the need
for a favorable business climate and policy mechanisms. Participants
also pointed out that the scale of the CCS infrastructure required
raises questions about the role of public and private sector
involvement. Finally, participants also discussed CCS in the context of
the CDM.

Chair
Kumarsingh closed the session by highlighting key issues raised during
the workshop, stating that while on-the-ground CCS experience exists,
there is not yet much experience in developing countries. He noted that
a related workshop is taking place on Monday, 22 May, on CCS as a CDM
project activity (for more official information on both workshops,
visit:
http://unfccc.int/meetings/sb24/in-session/items/3623.php).

IN THE CORRIDORS

While climate aficionados not attending
SB 24 may have been fretting about the latest media flurry over
Canadian politics and the Kyoto Protocol, the focus among delegates in
Bonn was firmly on the many specific and sometimes technical issues
being taken up in contact groups and informal consultations. On the SBI
side, Saturday ended on a somewhat sour note, with several participants
departing from the evening sessions on the Special Climate Change Fund
and the Adaptation Fund grumbling about polarized positions and lack of
willingness to compromise. Concerns about agenda overload at COP 12 and
COP/MOP 2 were also on many peopleï¿½s lips, with some delegates
expressing concerns over a possible ï¿½competitionï¿½ to ensure that their
specific priorities ended up at the top of the list.

This
issue of the Earth
Negotiations Bulletin ï¿½
<enb@iisd.org>
is written and edited by
Robynne Boyd, Alexis Conrad, Marï¿½a Gutiï¿½rrez, Kati Kulovesi,
Miquel Muï¿½oz, and Chris
Spence. The Digital Editor
is Francis Dejon. The Editors
are Lisa Schipper, Ph.D. <lisa@iisd.org>
and Pamela Chasek Ph.D. <pam@iisd.org>
and the Director of IISD
Reporting Services is
Langston James "Kimo" Goree
VI <kimo@iisd.org>.
The Sustaining Donors of the
Bulletin are the
Government of the United
States of America (through
the Department of State
Bureau of Oceans and
International Environmental
and Scientific Affairs), the
Government of Canada
(through CIDA), the Swiss
Agency for Environment,
Forests and Landscape (SAEFL),
the United Kingdom (through
the Department for
International Development -
DFID), the Danish Ministry
of Foreign Affairs, the
Government of Germany
(through the German Federal
Ministry of Environment -
BMU, and the German Federal
Ministry of Development
Cooperation - BMZ), the
Netherlands Ministry of
Foreign Affairs, the
European Commission (DG-ENV)
and the Italian Ministry for
the Environment and
Territory General
Directorate for Nature
Protection. General Support
for the Bulletin
during 2006 is provided by
the United Nations
Environment Programme (UNEP),
the Government of Australia,
the Austrian Federal
Ministry for the
Environment, the New Zealand
Ministry of Foreign Affairs
and Trade, SWAN
International, the Japanese
Ministry of Environment
(through the Institute for
Global Environmental
Strategies - IGES) and the
Japanese Ministry of
Economy, Trade and Industry
(through the Global
Industrial and Social
Progress Research Institute
- GISPRI). Funding for
translation of the Earth
Negotiations Bulletin
into French has been
provided by the
International Organization
of the Francophonie (IOF)
and the French Ministry of
Foreign Affairs. Funding for
the translation of the
Earth Negotiations Bulletin
into Spanish has been
provided by the Ministry of
Environment of Spain. The
opinions expressed in the
Earth Negotiations Bulletin
are those of the authors and
do not necessarily reflect
the views of IISD or other
donors. Excerpts from the
Earth Negotiations Bulletin
may be used in
non-commercial publications
with appropriate academic
citation. For information on
the Bulletin,
including requests to
provide reporting services,
contact the Director of IISD
Reporting Services at <kimo@iisd.org>,
+1-646-536-7556 or 212 East
47th St. #21F, New York, NY
10017, USA. The ENB Team at
SB 24 can be contacted by
e-mail at <chris@iisd.org>.